I make no apologies for returning to the subject of my last column: official silence on the Hong Kong Monetary Authority's HK$33 billion commitment as part of China's contribution to a regional stabilisation fund known as the Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralisation (CMIM). It goes to the heart of the government's use of the HKMA as a slush fund circumventing the Legislative Council and the proper budgetary process.
Since that column appeared, it has also been revealed that the government conducted a phoney head-hunt for a successor to HKMA chief Joseph Yam Chi-kwong. This has long been expected to be Norman Chan Tak-lam, head of the Chief Executive's Office, so the use of a bunch of allies to go through a secret 'selection' process illustrates the contempt with which Donald Tsang Yam-kuen views the public. (It also demeaned Victor Fung Kwok-king and Sir John Bond to be part of this charade).
But, back to the tortuously named CMIM. The government now says that it was not announced because it was merely an 'agreement in principle'. In that case, one wonders why Asean plus three - the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations, together with China, Japan and South Korea - made such a fuss of an agreement that has been given much coverage in the global and regional media. There was no sign of any Hong Kong presence at the time ministers and central bankers made the announcement in Bali.
To my suggestion that Hong Kong was simply told of its contribution by Beijing, the government now says that Hong Kong was 'part of the Chinese delegation' and was 'fully consulted'.
If so, why has the government not told the people who was there as Hong Kong's part of the Chinese delegation and, also, what gave him or her the authority to make even a 'commitment in principle' to laying out this huge sum?
While Hong Kong does have separate representation in bodies such as the Asian Development Bank, the World Trade Organisation and the World Health Organisation, it does not have any formal connection to the Asean plus three group. So the public must be told who has been, as claimed, participating in this group's discussion and on what basis. For sure, the fund is a good idea. But if Hong Kong is contributing so much, its role as a separate entity should be known. As it is, it has hidden itself behind Beijing's skirts.
The government's claim to having been consulted does not fit very well with accounts from one Asean delegate. According to that source, Hong Kong's contribution was introduced as a separate item, to paper over a dispute between China and Japan over precedence. Bringing in Hong Kong as part of China created a useful ambiguity as to whether China was contributing the same as Japan.